Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 39 of total 39 in this topic |
Mick Ryan
Trad climber
Kendal, English Lake District
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Mar 4, 2007 - 12:41pm PT
|
There are often debates about climbers with 'natural talent' postulating that some top climbers are born with natural talent and that no matter how often you train, how often you climb outside, without the necessary 'genetics' you have no chance of reaching the dizzying talent of climbers like Chris Sharma or John Bachar.
Read more at... http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
thanks Mick,
UKClimber is evolving (at least as I remember it) into an interesting, literate resource.
I think what is the interesting subplot is the possibility that physical limits imposed, ultimately by our genetics, put an upper end on climb difficulty. So even if you practice, practice, practice, are disciplined and genetically hyper-adapted to climbing, there are still limits to hard you (and by inference, anyone else) can climb.
What is fascinating to me is the absolute belief that there are no limits... we aren't ready to reduce climbing to "mere biomechanics." The misguided fear is that somehow, it losses its true meaning in the process. Never could understand that arguement in anything (but then again, I'm a physicist).
Sorry for the thread drift.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I agree, weschrist... but you cannot prepare to execute beyond the physical limits, how close you get is both physical and mental preparation.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Humans generally tend to suffer from a lack of forward vision. There might be limiits to cliimbing possibilities and there might not be.
let me ask this, in hindsight, what are the sports or endeavours where the limits have already been reached and no progress has been made for a generation or two?
Just because we don't know how the next level is reached doesn't mean it's not possible. could be genetic engineering, could be "mind over matter."
Peace
Karl
|
|
Kevster
Trad climber
Evergreen, CO
|
|
I find it amusing that each generation tries to define the limits of difficulty to satisfy their egos, and each new generation shatters those beliefs.
Physical ability is limited to what is believed to be possible. With the nearly endless combination of possibilities that natural stone can yield how can we truly believe we have reached our human genetic potential?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I'm not in it for the ego stroke, I haven't reached the limits of my generation yet, for a variety of reasons, and I'm not making excuses.. and I don't believe that those in my generation reached the limits of the sport, either.
Injuries are an indication that the outer limits are being explored. One can think that injuries are the result of poor training, bad luck, etc. which they can be, but often the injuries are starting to show the physical limits of a body. Since there are variations of body type (sort of the topic of Mick's post above) who reaches the limits when depends on their genetic makeup. There is a bio-physical limit to strength.
On the positive side of the "limits coin" is the fact climbing has attracted a set of people who can climb at a level approaching the physical limits. That means there are a lot of talented people out there climbing hard. And I applaud it all!
I don't mean to be a buzz kill, I don't mean to indicate that it has all been done by "my generation" I don't mean that at all. But I do think that considering what the limitations are you can become a better climber. There is still a lot of room at the top for progress to be made and some incredible climbs to be done.
Go do it!
But as weschrist said above, believing in the 1 minute mile is not sufficient to get it done. Perhaps it is the tyranny of biology, chemistry, physics which denies us.
...You can't always get what you want,
But if you try sometimes you just might find,
You get what you need...
|
|
HJ
Social climber
Bozeman, Montana
|
|
It seems to me that we are still nowhere close to reaching our potential. The incremental leeps may be smaller as we become more talented at a sport, but advances in training techniques combined with increased imagination provide plenty of room for advancement. A recent article in the New York Times PLAY Magazine "How to Grow a Super Athlete" is worth reading. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/sports/playmagazine/04play-talent.html Talks a lot about some recent findings in brain research that apply to ability in sports. (It's what the UK climbing article used as it's source.) Also, don't discount advances in gear either. I am now more technically adept at ice climbing than I was 25 years ago. This can be attributed almost completely to modern ice gear. Sure, there are limits to what ones individual body can do, but there are an infinite number of ways of approaching movement, so if you're body can't do one thing, maybe it can do something else. For example a tall person may be able to reach a hold a shorter person can't, but the shorter persons smaller mass may allow using a small intermediate hold a larger person can't. Lots of other examples if you use your imagination. My suspicion is the generation of young climbers that is now developing may well blow our minds.
|
|
Sheets
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I think training will be the big thing that moves the sport forward. My impression is that there is only a small number of people who actually train for clmibing in any meaningfull way. Compared to many other sports the competition and incentives to train hard don't seem to exist.
|
|
Landgolier
climber
the flatness
|
|
I don't have it around here, but I think in "How to Climb 5.12" Eric Horst makes a pretty good case that mid 12's is where most people can get with training and technique, genetics and talent are the name of the game beyond that.
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
Long jump world record history.
1935 Jesse Owens held world record until 1960 (25 yrs)
1968 Bob Beamon held record until 1991 (23 years)
1991 Mike Powell holds the record today. (16 and increasing).
5 of the top 10 long jumps in history were done by Carl Lewis who never held the world record. (He also has half of the top 22.)
http://www.alltime-athletics.com/mlongok.htm
|
|
Sheets
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I think the progression of fastest marathon times is interesting:
I think after 1980s East Africans really started dominating the sport while American men started going downhill.
If I had DataThief handy it would be fun to fit the curve as an 'estimate' of what's the best time a human can run 26.2 miles.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
The chess world has basically reached this threshold and is grappling man v. machine. We don't have the same competition via robotics in [rock] climbing, but the point is easily made in almost any sport that humans are working ever closer to biomechanical tolerances. Olympic time differences have been shrinking fast with events measured in hundredths of a second. No one is going to run a one minute mile, a one hour marathon, or climb 5.20. I'm with Ed, what we have and do is proud and can be extended in endurance, altitude, and conditions - but we are zeroing in on pure difficulty at a fairly fast clip (as it were). Those chess players grappling with the limits of human capability are having to make peace with those limits, so will we at some point in the not too distant future.
|
|
Anastasia
Trad climber
California
|
|
I don't agree with U.K.'s article. Most of us are born with the aptitude but never work enough to reach those dizzying heights of what is possible. I would say it is only a small minority of the population that is limited physically.
I think if you are willing to center your life around climbing, work out daily, study the art of climbing, study nutrition and kinetics, etc.... If you can dream "BIG" and work towards it, everything is possible.
Erik Weihenmaye can do it, he is a climber that made the first paraplegic ascents of Half Dome and of El Capitan. Imagine what we can do with all our facilities if we only worked at it.
The fact most of us haven't is that we are too distracted, lazy, and have other goals that prevent us from reaching a climber's greatness.
Anastasia
P.S. I am not a great climber, but at least I know my failure is more out of laziness than physical limitations. That is what keeps me dreaming that one day... Well one day I will get off my ass and do something interesting.
|
|
maculated
Trad climber
San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
"I think in "How to Climb 5.12" Eric Horst makes a pretty good case that mid 12's is where most people can get with training and technique, genetics and talent are the name of the game beyond that."
Yeah he does. Sigh . . . but some have to train harder than others. Just when I think all my joint drama is stabilized and I'm ready to push my limits, back to square one. Eric, keep telling me that. :)
|
|
Anastasia
Trad climber
California
|
|
I don't agree with Eric Horst book. My friend Eric Shaw is over 300 pounds and he does climb over that. Now, don't tell me it's because he is genetically gifted.
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
Trad climber
the blighted lands of hatu
|
|
Well, only one in two million people has what we call the "evil gene". Hitler had it, Walt Disney had it, and... Freddy Quimby has it. - Dr Hibbert
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Why would one want to be Super Climber?
What value does this have?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
Says the guy that hasn't left the Valley in 30 years and solos at the Cookie every afternoon ;-)
That's a cool chart Sheets, thanks.
Michael Jordan is the old standby example. We call him talented but he wasn't...or at least if he was he blossomed really late. Cut from the high school basketball team his sophomore year, he worked harder than anyone else after that and never EVER stopped. Guys are getting drafted out of high school these days but then sitting on the bench because they are 'talented' but they aren't training that hard.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
Horstsh#t,if you want it enough, can train enough, and can tap into the nonphysical parameters you can surprise yourself.
Now if I could only think beyond the move in front of me...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Wes, I think we're talking two different things: climbing to one's physical limits and humans climbing to the limits of the human body. We can all improve on climbing towards our physical limit, but humans aren't going to climb orders of magnitude harder than they are now. Again, no one is going to run a 1 minute mile, the biomechanical design of our bodies just simply precludes the possibility regardless of how hard you want it or train.
|
|
bachar
Trad climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
"A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at." - Bruce Lee
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Ah yes one day I left the Valley and went to Fresno. They have a Wall Mart there.
I could not find the training CD to become Superman. I asked the clerk which isle it is in. The clerk was not very helpful.
Thus I came back to the Valley to hide.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I posted similar plots for climbing in a thread last summer...
[url="http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=226916"]5.14 does NOT exist[/url]
I'll post a figure here from it:
where I calculate the maximum grade using the existing data and the model that the number of climbers capable of climbing above a particular grade is zero... that is, there will never be a climber who is such a mutant that they could climb arbitrarily hard.
The model makes the following predictions for attaining a grade in the Valley:
5.4 1901
5.5 1936
5.6 1945
5.7 1951
5.8 1956
5.9 1959
5.10a 1962
5.10b 1965
5.10c 1967
5.10d 1969
5.11a 1971
5.11b 1973
5.11c 1975
5.11d 1977
5.12a 1978
5.12b 1980
5.12c 1982
5.12d 1983
5.13a 1985
5.13b 1986
5.13c 1988
5.13d 1989
5.14a 1991
5.14b 1992
5.14c 1994 (V12)
5.14d 1996 (V13)
5.15a 1997 (V14)
5.15b 1999 (V15)
5.15c 2001
5.15d 2003
5.16a 2005
5.16b 2008
5.16c 2010
5.16d 2013
5.17a 2017
5.17b 2022
5.17c 2028
5.17d 2039 maximum grade
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
I'm proud to mention that, according to that chart I can consistantly climb the grade that was the upper limit at the year of my birth. ... except, maybe in Dresden, or that siberian solo place.
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
If they had gone to hexadecimal numbering instead of 5.10 we would have been able to max out at 5.f.
Perhaps we could start lettering the grades above 5.15 so that we do not have to go above 5.20. So 5.15 should be 5.15a through let's say 5.15z.
|
|
426
Sport climber
Buzzard Point, TN
|
|
Seems that a few climbers like Yaniro and Gullich were climbing (more than) a full number grade harder than the "Valley" predicted. ie, '78 was a banner year....
In terms of training, the Jaybro speaks wisdom.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
There is an interesting reaction among climbers to the premise that there is a maximum difficulty limit to climbing. There is at least two things going on in what somebody hears in that statement: 1) you are limited and/or 2) there are limits. As far as individual limits are concerned, this is a combination of individual physical make-up and prepartion. No doubt that in most cases, we don't think we reach our own maximum capability. We could all figure out someway of getting better, if that is what we want to do, of course. It is possible that there are people out there who are physically incapable of climbing even in the low grades, but they are rare (those people who are otherwise physically capable).
As Gould points out regarding baseball statistics, as you start to reach the limits of performance, those elite atheletes start to "pile up" at the performance limit. The variation in the measurable ability becomes less as the play becomes better. This is an interesting point, basically you've got all the the best people that could play baseball playing it, you've sampled the high end of the distribution of people who could play at that level. Once you've done that, you can start to see how that population differs from the rest of the population and start to get some idea of what physical limitations impose performance limitations in baseball. Doing that, you might actually see how to improve, but after a while you come to the conclusion that you're never going to see someone come along with all the attributes needed to significantly outperform the rest. I say "never" and mean very very unlikely.
So my thinking really is from the second statement, 2) above, there are limits. How could I assert such a thing? Well the logistics curve is a standard solution to a differential equation with exactly the meaning in the previous paragraphy. Given a sample of people to draw upon, there are only so many that can climb at the extreme limits of the sport. As the sport is "created" it draws on that sample, as it matures the difficulty increases quickly, but at some point all the best people are climbing and they're are no more capable of pushing the difficulty limit.
So it is just an observation that the sport is not developing in difficulty as quickly as it did through the 5.12's... which is the difficulty grade around which difficulty was changing the quickest. Interestingly enough, this agrees with Horst's assertion that 5.12 is accessible to anyone who wishes to train for it. (What I think is true is that people with average physical attributes for climbing can train to climb at that level, not everyone has those attributes, but more people do than don't). At that point, the physical limitations start to set in and fewer people are capable of climbing harder. With fewer people doing it, the progress on increasing grades decreases until there is no one around able to do it... the model says 5.17d is where that is...
My interest concerns what sets the maximum grade.
It's just a hypothesis, interestingly, I might be around to see it tested!
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
Actually, of course, the same number of people have above average ability as below average, normally.
But there clearly is a physical limitation to climbing. The question of whether 5.17d as a prediction is the max, though, begs the question of how 5.17d is defined. Currently the grades are subjective. So it might be that as progress slows the difference, objectively, between grades diminishes. So that the "grade creep" might continue just as it has, unlike the objective performance as shown in the history of the long jump or other measured physical performances.
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
But there clearly is a physical limitation to climbing.
I recant this statement. It now seems obvious to me that we might someday be just as capable of climbing our walls and crossing the ceiling as a housefly - not climbing as we know it today, but aided perhaps by nano-technological devices that take advantage of Coulombic forces or nano-scale rugosity.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Some say that taping for cracks is aid... some say that chalk so not be used...
...certainly if the rules by which we play change, then the rating limits will too, but given the equipment we'd expect a boulderer to employ, backed up with a rope and anchor system similar to what we use today, the limits are physical.
As for objective vs. subjective system, I agree that the there is a degree of subjectivity, I have used only Valley climbing, and "high statistics" data pre-1990's... where the grades were well established.
I'm surprised that TIG would take up a "no limits" stance, certainly if you are climbing friction, there is a calculable limit given coefficient of friction for boots and hand on rock... that would limit, physically, the difficulty. Now extend that sort of thinking to other types of climbing.
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
Ed, I was basically agreeing with you with respect to physics and biomechanics. But, of course, we do now have shoes that have higher friction than those of yesterday. So imagining shoes and gloves that are not limited by classical friction is not hard.
Study physiology and you will find that the body has a number of mechanisms for supplying energy to muscles. Each works at different speeds and has limitations on the rate and volume of energy produced.
So while we might not see man "running" a one minute mile, we have seen skating and cycling at significantly higher speeds than running.
As far as climbing "naked", their are limitations imposed by size, skeletal structure and composition, muscular components, energy generation, and even, or maybe especially, skin. If there were enough money in it, would climbers break bones so that they could be repaired with metal?
So it is conceivable to me that the grades change proportionally to the remaining distance to the asymptotic limit, allowing us to claim that we are making progress forever.
Consider also how many different types of climbing activities have been measured on the same scale, i.e. one of "difficulty". It is easy to imagine routes that NBA centers could do quite easily that even NBA guards (and no current professional climbers) could do.
|
|
joane
climber
|
|
I agree, "You can't limit a complex sport like climbing to physical limits... too many factors working together."
It's too complex to know what an "ultimate" truth or ultimate limit even is and the history shows increased difficulty and how that difficulty is measured for comparison and how climbers use it in planning to succeed in doing the climb--to the extent they share the info.
I just don' t think climbing is a quantifiable activity. Take a look at your own progress and how it happens that something that you believed was impossible to do at one time, whether on a hard move to take another "step" in a climb or attempt a harder route of more hard moves, what you judged in the first place to be this way or that, under certain conditions including those of your own physical/mind, changes under the test of doing it.
Could you believe that when you finally did do the move that it could be done, or rather could you believe the move could be done when you were struggling and failing to do it?
I think that's why the competition idea is a big challenge, how do you measure all it takes to make a climb and then what is one climb against another one.
It is easier to artificially develop standards as in gym climbing where you can control the variables a bit more but even then, technique and the understanding of it is always evolving as in many sports.
And who is best or who is first is purely a social generalism kind of approach which is not meaningless but it is not the definitive show on why anyone climbs.
So there is what you know intuitively about climbing, what you can tell your friends about in communicating how you climbed something, what scientific scheme various measurements can fit into to give some meaning to it etc.
For example, in the Alps it has been a long and old tale that your pace in altitude should be steady and continous to be most efficient, that is unlike here in the US where people tend to climb a bit, stop a bit, start again etc etc. A US study of 3 climbers up in Alaska had them swallow some measuring device that in fact during the study measured a better core body temperature for the clmiber who more consistently used this old alpine method of steady continuous movement versus the climber that used a stop/go style to climb in altitude. The study was interesting, it was scientific "proof" of something some climbers learned a long time ago, without the same measuring devices.
Similar measurement issue -- the Brits climbing in Everest in wool sweaters versus what we have today. The latest effort seems to be that some climber will climb Everest with quite a bit of nothing on, back to the old pre- domesticated human state. So it should be interesting to see if he does it in such a "pure" style, and what does that say about someone wearing all Gore-tex etc. And I'm not sure what it will really measure, it's just one perspective on how to climb Everest among many competing ideas for the audience in our society watching and enjoying (or not) others and what they do. Same thing with the oxygen controversy, it's clearly an add on artificial device, enabling some climbers to climb where otherwise they couldn't climb--for long anyway.
So we measure a climb up Everest including a lot of these variables, that's why there should really be a long list of specifics about how people do accomplish climbs because it tells you really what the challenges were, that is what are "fair means" and not just in terms of reaching an end point by any means.
|
|
nutjob
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
One of the most powerful meanings that we create in our lives is the desire to improve and accel. Purposeful action toward this goal both exercises and refills our spirit.
As we asymptotically approach physical limits (and other limits imposed by our own chosen passions and priorities), we'll celebrate ever-smaller physical improvements as the significant leaps of will and spirit that they are. I hope this celebration continues open-ended, because when it stops that means our spirits lose the sense of more to come, more to achieve, something for which to live.
Maybe I show my relative youth... perhaps the proper attitude should be that of a person at the end of his life, looking back in satisfaction at all he has accomplished and feeling that it is right to be done.
I hope I go to my death bed a long time from now feeling there is still more to be done.
|
|
bonin_in_the_boneyard
Trad climber
Sittin' on the dock by the bay...
|
|
1-minute mile aside, there is an interesting fact about breaking the 4-minute mile barrier.
It was once accepted as fact that running a mile in less than 4 minutes was impossible -- that is until Roger Bannister did so in 1954.
What most people don't know is that in the next 18 months over 40 other people managed to achieve official sub 4-minute mile times as well.
Hmmm...
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
"I'm proud to mention that, according to that chart I can consistantly climb the grade that was the upper limit at the year of my birth"
Alas, all of that scarey stuff on Middle was going up around the year of my birth. The grades aren't huge, and I can, like, climb those numbers in the gym 'n stuff. But knowing what was happening back then...and I'm not so young...is humbling indeed.
Anastasia...a 300 lb guy climbing 12's has some sort of gift!
|
|
Anastasia
Trad climber
California
|
|
No I wouldn't...
He was a great climber in his early years and had developed great skills. Plus, despite the fact that he can't pull his weight up, he still goes out and climbs walls that need more foot work than upper body strength.
I will call him a smart guy, not a physically gifted one. This showing that natural physical ability is not everything.
I believe you can achieve what you work for; nothing more and nothing less.
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
I'm just saying that the ability and drive to do that work is a gift in itself worth celebrating and not wasting. Most people over 300 lbs would quit trying. Some people are born with more strength, and some people are born with more drive, and it's on us to use our gifts to their fullest...or not.
|
|
Anastasia
Trad climber
California
|
|
Melissa,
Did I forget to tell you that you are beautiful and brilliant? I just caught you drift and agree whole heartedly.
AF
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
"and it's on us to use our gifts to their fullest...or not."
Definitely at the heart of the half the conversation relevant to individual climbers...
|
|
| Messages 1 - 39 of total 39 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!